Kapitalismen kan overleve tross automatisering av produksjonen
____________________________________________________
I dette innlegget (som jeg opprinnelig skreiv på engelsk fordi jeg sendte
det til ei anna, engelskspråklig liste), tar jeg opp en del spørsmål som er
uavklarte på venstresida, og som dessuten går inn i en debatt som har vært
ført mellom "marxister" i 150 år eller mer:
- Vil kapitalistenes profittrate (P/K der P = fortjeneste og K = investert
kapital) falle etter hvert som produksjonen automatiseres? (....NEI, ikke
nødvendigvis, sier jeg).
- Kan kapitalismen fortsette for alltid sjøl om all produksjonen
automatiseres? (....JA, hvis visse vilkår er innfridd, svarer jeg).
- Hvor skapes det "verdier"? (...Et vanskelig og kanskje mer forvirrende enn
nyttig begrep, sier jeg),
- Lever arbeidere i handel og service av "verdier" skapt av arbeidere
i "produksjonen"? (....NEI, sier jeg).
- Hvis jeg har rett i de ovenstående punkter, hvilke ANDRE vilkår er det som
må oppfylles for å få avvikla kapitalismen? (...Dette vi ikke jeg forsøke å
besvare i denne omgang).
Det som følger nedenfor er altså på engelsk. jeg hadde valget mellom å sende
det ut nå på engelsk, eller kanskje ikke i det hele tatt eller om lenge, på
norsk. Håper de fleste i forumet får noe ut av det. Debatten kan i hvert
fall føres på norsk! ;-)
Trond Andresen
******************************************
Marx's law of the falling profit rate, does it hold?
There is a tradition among some marxists to console themselves with the
following prediction:
"The economy will become gradually more automated. This increases the organic
composition of capital and decreases the profit rate. Capitalism is thus
doomed
in the long run."
Besides being wishful thinking, this is also IMO a consequence of a tendency
for marxists to be so infatuated with physical production (which "produces
surplus value") that they underestimate the importance and impact of what I
have called the s/s sector. In Norway now, there is a strong tendency for
capitalists convincing politicians to let them take over labor-intensive
activities which until now have been in the public sector, like care for the
elderly, kindergartens, garbage collection, public transport, schools. They
see where the future of capitalism lies: To still make a profit, it is good
to have a large number if workers and relatively low fixed capital. So they
try to expand in areas that are inherently difficult to automate.
Imagine a future economy that tends towards a structure with two main
sectors: A higly automated manufacturing sector with a dwindling workforce,
and a service/servant sector with low fixed capital and a large and
increasing workforce. (I introduce the term "servant" here to indicate the
presence of firms servicing the rich, such as domestic help, leisure
acitivities, security, catering etc. This comes on top of services for the
general population like health, education, culture, media which also are
labor-intensive activities - thus the "service/servant(s/s) " sector). As
long as
a major share of the workforce is employed in such labor-intensive activities,
this will ensure that the profit rate can be upheld, even if manufacturing
is nearly wholly automated. And specifically, the profit rate in the highly
automated manufacturing sector will be equalized with that of the s/s sector
through the market/price mechanism.
To me a s/s-sector dominated future seems just as probable as a completely
automated production future. Then the law of the falling profit rate will not
neccessarily prevail.
By the way, I am talking about profit rates, not "surplus value".
(norsk: merverdi)
I do not employ the concept of "surplus value"
because it is not neccessary for
my argument, and furthermore because I know we will then get the -to me-
meaningless discussion of whether a certain sector "creates surplus value"
or whether it "lives off surplus value created in other sectors". (This is
a futile part of marxist economics, even if I am 90% symphatetic to the
field as a whole.)
Imagine a firm selling services to the rich in the form of domestic help.
The owners of this firm are able to extract a profit, the bigger
the more the power balance in the firm is tilted in favor of the management.
Theowners have sunk a certain amount of money in the firm to get it going,
they receive a revenue flow, and extract profits after paying wages and other
running costs. So they have a certain profit rate, whether this type of firm
"creates surplus value" or not.
Imagine a stylized capitalist society where physical products are made only
by self-employed individuals, but where services are sold by firms
organizing employees for that purpose. There are no capitalist manufacturing
firms in this society, only capitalist service firms. Even if this is a
strange thought experiment, such a society is feasible. In a dogmatic
"marxist" view, no surplus value is created in this society.
But the service firms will obviously still be able to enjoy a profit
rate, among other things decided by the balance of power between
employers/employees within a given firm.
By the above I want to make the point that a future economy which is
capitalist, can uphold a profit rate as long as a sufficiently large share
of output is from a labor-intensive service/servant sector.
If the profit rate is lower in the manufacturing sector, capitalists will
withdraw from this sector and instead invest in the s/s sector. Prices will
decrease there with increasing supply, and increase in the now lower
capacity manufacturing sector. This will tend to equalize profit rates.
So the profit rate will be upheld in the automated manufacturing
sector, ensured by the existence of a large workforce in the s/s sector.
The determining rate is found in the sector where most labor is
employed. I agree to the view that the general profit
rate is some sort of average of the various sector's value rates of profit.
In the future society I envisage, the highly automated
manufacturing sector will enjoy its profit rate thanks to the presence
of a labor-intensive s/s sector.
To put it simply: As long as capitalist relationship between a ruling class
on one hand and a large workforce on the other hand, is upheld, REGARDLESS
OF THE TYPE OF WORK, capitalism kan survive for ever.
Trond Andresen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 20 2000 - 15:02:45 MET